The main goal of the IDBA is to size the Digital Divide in Latin America and the Caribbean by measuring the state of broadband development in the 26 Bank-member countries, as well as in additional reference countries (64 nations in total). The IDBA is a powerful tool to identify the magnitude of the gap in two different geographic approached, first when we compare the state of the art of one country versus the cluster region the country belongs to, and second, when we compare the country with respect to the OECD. The IDBA relies on a comprehensive approach based on four pillars: infrastructure, applications and capacity, strategic regulations, and public policy and strategic vision. Those four pillars are built as a result of the combination of 37 indicators from renowned international institutions. As a result, the IDBA provides a tool for decision makers and policymakers to detect, on a country basis, strengths and areas for improvement in developing specific, concrete and actionable plans.

This dataset was created to support 2011 DIA "Development Connections: Unveiling the Impact of New Information Technologies" on the following topics: ICT for development, ICT for productive development

Results of the Civil Service Development Index (CSDI), obtained from diagnostics of the institutional quality of civil service systems in 16 Latin American countries. The IDB supported the design of a methodology that evaluates critical points to assess the civil services and carried out country evaluations in 2004. Between 2011 and 2013, a second group of diagnostics second group of diagnostics were completed (with the support of the Inter-American Development Bank, and in the case of Central American countries and Dominican Republic with the support of the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation and Development –AECID- and the Central American Integration System-SICA). Scores are available for 2004, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015 (year of second and/or third measurement varies per country). During the first assessment, 93 critical points were identified; each of those fed a subsystem and an index. In 2010 the methodology was simplified to 33 critical points and the base line was recalibrated to ensure comparability. The methodology is based in the identification of critical points that feed 8 subsystems: 1. Human Resources Planning, 2. Work Organization, 3. Employment management, 4. Performance management, 5. Compensation management, 6. Development management, 7. Human and social relations management, 8. HR Function organization; and 5 indexes: 1. Efficiency, 2. Merit, 3. Structural consistency, 4. Functional capacity, and 5. Integrating capacity.

The main goal of the IDBA is to size the Digital Divide in Latin America and the Caribbean by measuring the state of broadband development in the 26 Bank-member countries, as well as in additional reference countries (64 nations in total). The IDBA is a powerful tool to identify the magnitude of the gap in two different geographic approached, first when we compare the state of the art of one country versus the cluster region the country belongs to, and second, when we compare the country with respect to the OECD. The IDBA relies on a comprehensive approach based on four pillars: infrastructure, applications and capacity, strategic regulations, and public policy and strategic vision. Those four pillars are built as a result of the combination of 37 indicators from renowned international institutions. As a result, the IDBA provides a tool for decision makers and policymakers to detect, on a country basis, strengths and areas for improvement in developing specific, concrete and actionable plans.

The database allows estimating structural fiscal balances for 20 countries in the region under different assumptions regarding the output gap and commodity structural prices. It is a unique database of its kind since: 1) It takes into consideration the distinct responsiveness of different types of revenues to changes in the output gap: In order to adjust for the impact of the business cycle on revenues, we calculate individual elasticities for each source of revenue (i.e. direct taxes, indirect taxes, revenues from non-renewable resources, etc.). Since the different types of revenues in the region have different sensitivities to changes in the output gap, this disaggregated approach allows for a more fine-tuned adjustment. 2) It includes estimations of SFBs based on output gaps’ projections available in “real time”. In addition to giving estimations of the actual SFBs, we provide with estimations of the SFBs that would have resulted should the projections on output gaps available to policymakers at the time of designing fiscal policy (data in “real time”) have been correct. This is in contrast to much of the existing work on structural fiscal balances that makes only an “ex post” analysis using actual and revised information on the output gaps. 3) It allows assessing the response of fiscal policy to the business cycle. We provide with measures of the fiscal impulse, assessing not only the actual but also the intentional fiscal stance, as well as the degree of procyclicality of fiscal policy.

The database allows estimating structural fiscal balances for 20 countries in the region under different assumptions regarding the output gap and commodity structural prices. It is a unique database of its kind since: 1) It takes into consideration the distinct responsiveness of different types of revenues to changes in the output gap: In order to adjust for the impact of the business cycle on revenues, we calculate individual elasticities for each source of revenue (i.e. direct taxes, indirect taxes, revenues from non-renewable resources, etc.). Since the different types of revenues in the region have different sensitivities to changes in the output gap, this disaggregated approach allows for a more fine-tuned adjustment. 2) It includes estimations of SFBs based on output gaps’ projections available in “real time”. In addition to giving estimations of the actual SFBs, we provide with estimations of the SFBs that would have resulted should the projections on output gaps available to policymakers at the time of designing fiscal policy (data in “real time”) have been correct. This is in contrast to much of the existing work on structural fiscal balances that makes only an “ex post” analysis using actual and revised information on the output gaps. 3) It allows assessing the response of fiscal policy to the business cycle. We provide with measures of the fiscal impulse, assessing not only the actual but also the intentional fiscal stance, as well as the degree of procyclicality of fiscal policy.

The database allows estimating structural fiscal balances for 20 countries in the region under different assumptions regarding the output gap and commodity structural prices. It is a unique database of its kind since: 1) It takes into consideration the distinct responsiveness of different types of revenues to changes in the output gap: In order to adjust for the impact of the business cycle on revenues, we calculate individual elasticities for each source of revenue (i.e. direct taxes, indirect taxes, revenues from non-renewable resources, etc.). Since the different types of revenues in the region have different sensitivities to changes in the output gap, this disaggregated approach allows for a more fine-tuned adjustment. 2) It includes estimations of SFBs based on output gaps’ projections available in “real time”. In addition to giving estimations of the actual SFBs, we provide with estimations of the SFBs that would have resulted should the projections on output gaps available to policymakers at the time of designing fiscal policy (data in “real time”) have been correct. This is in contrast to much of the existing work on structural fiscal balances that makes only an “ex post” analysis using actual and revised information on the output gaps. 3) It allows assessing the response of fiscal policy to the business cycle. We provide with measures of the fiscal impulse, assessing not only the actual but also the intentional fiscal stance, as well as the degree of procyclicality of fiscal policy.

The database allows estimating structural fiscal balances for 20 countries in the region under different assumptions regarding the output gap and commodity structural prices. It is a unique database of its kind since: 1) It takes into consideration the distinct responsiveness of different types of revenues to changes in the output gap: In order to adjust for the impact of the business cycle on revenues, we calculate individual elasticities for each source of revenue (i.e. direct taxes, indirect taxes, revenues from non-renewable resources, etc.). Since the different types of revenues in the region have different sensitivities to changes in the output gap, this disaggregated approach allows for a more fine-tuned adjustment. 2) It includes estimations of SFBs based on output gaps’ projections available in “real time”. In addition to giving estimations of the actual SFBs, we provide with estimations of the SFBs that would have resulted should the projections on output gaps available to policymakers at the time of designing fiscal policy (data in “real time”) have been correct. This is in contrast to much of the existing work on structural fiscal balances that makes only an “ex post” analysis using actual and revised information on the output gaps. 3) It allows assessing the response of fiscal policy to the business cycle. We provide with measures of the fiscal impulse, assessing not only the actual but also the intentional fiscal stance, as well as the degree of procyclicality of fiscal policy.

The Public Management Evaluation Tool (PET) evaluates five “pillars” of the public policies' management cycle that are considered important for the implementation of Management for Development Results (MfDR): (i) results-based planning, (ii) results-based budgeting, (iii) public financial management (including auditing and procurement), (iv) program and project management (including the public investment system), and (v) monitoring and evaluation of public management. These pillars are broken down into components that track the maturity of institutional systems. The components are in turn composed of indicators and minimum requirements that these systems must have in an MfDR environment. All of these measures (minimum requirements, indicators, components, and pillars) are scored on a scale from 0 to 5, where a 5 indicates an ideal institutional situation.